Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Pauciloquent_1_2

Herzlos wrote: »

Wasn't it Davis that said that it's not democracy if you can't change your mind later.

If you're clinging to tightly to the "will of the people", then you need to accept that if the will of the people changes, the outcome needs to change.

What the people wanted on 23rd June 2016 is irrelevant if they want something else now. That's kinda the whole point of democracy.

As to whether enough people will vote to rejoin, well it depends on how badly we leave, and how many people are disillusioned by how the UK government has handled it. It might still be the better option to re-join, if leaving is bad enough.

Remember that there was barely a 2% majority to leave, before all the lies were walked back on. If you'd had any clear victory, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It really doesn't matter how much you or others whinge on about it, at the first opportunity (the first time of asking if you will) in over 40 years the British public decided to leave the EU.

I personally have no problem with having another vote once the original has had the decision implemented, if that is what enough people really decide that they want.
If their opinions have changed them I would fully support whatever is decided.
What a shame it is that yourself and others cannot similarly respect the outcome of that original vote.

I suspect that unhappy devout remainers would indeed still be having this discussion even had the result been a 20% gap, purely because the result did not go the way they wanted it to.
That is certainly how it appears from what I read in this forum.

mayonnaise

Pauciloquent_1 wrote: »

First, I did not say that; the link did.
Second, how about you try to debate the contents of the post if you can?
Which bits specifically do you disagree with?
(This could be fun. I will get my popcorn ready. )

Ok, I'll give it a go.

The bit about Italy, its banks and their bad debt - asset quality issues for example.
The author paints a picture of increasing debt, bailouts, Italian govt unable to borrow, etc....

Meanwhile, in he real world:



Time to relax about Italian banks' bad loans
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/live-markets-time-relax-italian-142204835.html

Non-performing loans (NPLs) are no longer the bogeyman of the Italian banking sector

"Asset quality no longer features at the top of Scope's systemic risk agenda for Italian banks"

But if you like his message maybe you should buy his book. I'm sure there are plenty of 'end of the EU is near' stories in it to keep you happy for a couple of hours.

Collapse: Europe after the European Union, by Ian Kearns, is published by Biteback Publishing.

Pauciloquent_1_2

Even Politico, the pro-EU publication, says Italy is in trouble but at least you looked.

taly!!!8217;s economy is the third-largest in the eurozone. It!!!8217;s also one of the slowest growing !!!8212; and most indebted !!!8212; in the currency union. With public debt at roughly 130 percent of GDP, Italy is second only to Greece, at 180 percent.

What makes the Italian situation worrying is sheer scale. As of October, according to the Bank of Italy, the government owed some !!!8364;2.3 trillion. That!!!8217;s roughly !!!8364;35,000 for each Italian, newborns included.

https://www.politico.eu/article/italian-election-march-4-four-reasons-why-europeans-should-worry/

In the event, over the past 20 years, Italy has managed to lose more than 20 percent in competitiveness to Germany. Stuck in the euro, Italy can no longer resort to currency depreciation to correct such losses in competitiveness.

Italy!!!8217;s loss of competitiveness, coupled with its need to undertake serious budget adjustment in a euro straitjacket, has contributed to its highly disappointing economic performance over the past two decades.

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/382898-italy-is-too-big-to-fail-too-risky-to-be-ignored

Oh look, the Euro hasn't been kind to Italy it says - surprising not one single non-Europhile, I suspect.

mayonnaise

Pauciloquent_1 wrote: »

Even Politico, the pro-EU publication, says Italy is in trouble but at least you looked.

https://www.politico.eu/article/italian-election-march-4-four-reasons-why-europeans-should-worry/


http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/382898-italy-is-too-big-to-fail-too-risky-to-be-ignored

Oh look, the Euro hasn't been kind to Italy it says - surprising not one single non-Europhile, I suspect.

You're struggling now.
You presented an article on an Italian banking crisis which was supposed to signal the end of the EU. As soon as I debunk that, you switch to GDP growth and public debt.
But sure let's talk about growth. Italian GDP YoY came in at +1.5% for 2017. About the same as the UK. When applied to the UK, you called it 'steady growth'
Italian public debt? Eye-wateringly high I'd say.
€2.3 trillion, how much is that in GBP?
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

Whether the majority was 1000 or 1.7m is neither here nor there.

Only if you don't understand statistics and don't care about anything else beyond getting your own way.

There was a majority and it's the job of the government to do what they said they would do, i.e. leave the EU and that includes leaving the CU, SM and ECJ.

There was an insignificant majority, which means the result of the referendum was unclear at best.
Nothing in the referendum asked about the CU, SM or ECJ either, so there's no conclusion to be made about them from the referendum.

You also need to accept that the will of the people can change. If they wanted something then, but not not, why would you cling to what they sort-of-wanted-if-you-squint-hard-enough back then?

Herzlos

Pauciloquent_1 wrote: »

I personally have no problem with having another vote once the original has had the decision implemented, if that is what enough people really decide that they want.

So you're happy to have a 2nd referendum but only after it's too late? Very noble.

And I believe that if there was a majority of even 10% the Remainers would be getting behind the economic suicide - it's what the majority wanted. You'd be struggling to claim 51.9% was a meaningful majority in any other context.

Pauciloquent_1_2

mayonnaise wrote: »

You're struggling now.
You presented an article on an Italian banking crisis which was supposed to signal the end of the EU. As soon as I debunk that, you switch to GDP growth and public debt.
But sure let's talk about growth. Italian GDP YoY came in at +1.5% for 2017. About the same as the UK. When applied to the UK, you called it 'steady growth'
Italian public debt? Eye-wateringly high I'd say.
!!!8364;2.3 trillion, how much is that in GBP?
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

Wrong, and get away with you, it's obviously YOU struggling hence your attitude.
I presented an article whose headline suggested the EU might (Get that? might ) be facing crisis and you just don't like it.
Italy was only part of the problem and even though you chose that you decided to ignore the pertinent stated fact that Italy is severely in debt.
Anyone seriously trying to suggest that Italy is doing any more than struggling is ignoring their problems and you have debunked nothing bar providing a lone Yahoo commentary with a few graphics that don't stand up to scrutiny.
Stick to reliable sources maybe as I have with Politico.

There's no need to talk about growth as that wasn't in the article but since you insist:
Italy growth 2016 was 0.8%; the UK's was 1.8%
Since the UK's growth was 1.7% in 2017 that was indeed "steady" - or do you misunderstand that word?
That would not be surprising since you deny Italy's debt and banking problems, preferring to instead believe the narrow view in a Yahoo post of Italian non-performing loans situation improving but ignoring the wider picture.

Here's another saying Italy's troubles do exist, contrary to your imagination.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/italy-financial-crisis-deutsche-bank-2017-9

Herzlos

If you regard Italy as severely in debt and struggling, how do you feel about UK debt?

fatbeetle

The European Commission has said it wants to open talks with Albania and Macedonia to allow the two countries to join the European Union.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-albania-macedonia-join-new-members-european-commission-enlargement-talks-a8308916.html

Maybe they can make up the cash deficit left by Brexit. :-)

The European Commission has unveiled its plans for a bigger continent-wide EU budget to finance new priorities including defence, border control, and international aid.

The !!!8364;1.135 trillion (£1 trillion) proposal unveiled by president Jean-Claude Juncker in Brussels on Wednesday would spend 1.1 per cent of the bloc!!!8217;s GDP, with higher contributions for member states and cuts to some spending areas to make up for lost payments from Brexit.

They're going to need to get the cash from somewhere!

Herzlos

fatbeetle wrote: »

They're going to need to get the cash from somewhere!

What makes you so sure they won't get it from us anyway?